alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sally Wolfe, Respondent, v Daniel E. Wolfe, Jr., Appellant.

In an action for divorce, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered September 18, 1984, as, upon the plaintiff wife’s motion, awarded her temporary maintenance of $300 per week and child support of $100 per week, ordered defendant to pay all carrying charges on the marital residence and “to continue to pay the expenses that he is presently *810paying”, granted plaintiff temporary exclusive occupancy of the marital residence, and awarded her $1,500 pendente lite for accountant’s fees.

Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which directed defendant “to continue to pay the expenses that he is presently paying”, and substituting therefor a provision requiring defendant to continue to pay the loan, insurance and repair bills on the automobile driven by plaintiff, and to continue making health insurance payments on behalf of the plaintiff and infant issue. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

While we agree with Special Term that defendant should continue paying the expenses he has been paying, the court should have set forth those expenses specifically. The pendente lite award of maintenance and child support was based on the reasonable needs of plaintiff and the parties’ infant son *{Jorgensen v Jorgensen,*86 AD2d 861). Exclusion of the defendant husband from the marital residence is not unj ustified considering the domestic strife his presence has often caused there. Moreover, in December 1983, defendant voluntarily established an alternative residence for himself *{see, Rauch v Rauch,*83 AD2d 847, 848).

Further, discovery by an accounting expert is essential under the circumstances presented, and the award of $1,500 for such services was entirely proper (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [c]). The husband listed as “[ujnknown” the value of his interests in several corporate enterprises *{Endes v Endes,*88 AD2d 652) and plaintiff met the criteria for such an award outlined by this court in *Ahern v Ahern*(94 AD2d 53). Defendant’s remedy for any claimed inequities of this pendente lite award is a speedy trial, wherein a more detailed examination of the circumstances of the parties may be had *{Rossman v Rossman,*91 AD2d 1036). Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          97,480
<SECURITIES>                                    62,555
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,006
<INVENTORY>                                     50,877
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               455,822
<PP&E>                                       1,199,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                 442,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,600,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          606,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                     719,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,600,094
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               590,539
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  590,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   826
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
# C_2020191EN.01001301.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/13

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2020 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion)

(Case T-60/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation of the trade mark on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 191/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 (Case R 2296/2017-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Filotas Bellas & Yios.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Republic of Cyprus shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Cyprus shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
# C_2020378EN.01003501.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/35

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-645/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Development cooperation - Implementing the EU budget in indirect management - Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice - Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Close link with the claim for annulment - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 378/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of the Commission of 18 July 2019 by which the Commission, in execution of the judgment of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, EU:C:2019:78), requests the applicant to provide certain documents and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that letter and of the Commission decisions annulled by that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed.

| 2) | International Management Group (IMG) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

International Management Group (IMG) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6138

KENNETH M. DUKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of State; LYNN

PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; PHILE HOLESHOUSER, Hearing Officer; J. R. MULLINAX, Office Administrator; JACK WARD, Superintendent;

BOBBY INVESTIGATING OFFICER; JUANITA H. BAKER,

Parole Chairman; ELBERT T. BUCK, JR., WILLIAM

A. LOWRY; CHARLES L. MANN; PEGGY STAMEY;

RICKEY DALE BROCK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-94-573-4)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth M. Dukes, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special

Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Dukes v. Freeman, No. CA-94-573-4 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

Calendar No. 145 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 997 

[Report No. 112–65] 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract between 

the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

AUGUST 30 (legislative day, AUGUST 2), 2011 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 2011, by 

Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water 

contract between the United States and the East Bench 

Irrigation District. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘East Bench Irrigation 

5 District Water Contract Extension Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 997 RS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT. 

2 The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract 

3 for water services between the United States and the East 

4 Bench Irrigation District, numbered 14–06–600–3593, 

5 until the earlier of— 

6 (1) the date that is 4 years after the date on 

7 which the contract would have expired if this Act 

8 had not been enacted; or 

9 (2) the date on which a new long-term contract 

10 is executed by the parties to the contract. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 145 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 997 

[Report No. 112–65] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend 

the East Bench Irrigation District. a water contract between the United States and 

AUGUST 30 (legislative day, AUGUST 2), 2011 

Reported without amendment 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Lestishock, Appellant.

Judgment rendered April *14021, 1983 in Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Haft, J.), convicting defendant, on three counts each, of robbery in the third degree and attempted robbery in the third degree, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence on count two of indictment number 4830/82 (attempted robbery in the third degree) to *lVs*to 4 years, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

It appears that the court inadvertently sentenced defendant to 2 to 6 years on one of the attempted robbery counts, in excess of the legal maximum. We modify only to correct this one sentence, and otherwise affirm. The defendant’s argument of excessiveness is not persuasive in light of the (at least) 14 bank robberies committed by him and his extensive prior record.

The order of this court entered on January 24, 1985 and the memorandum decision filed therewith (107 AD2d 647) are recalled and vacated. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.
Exhibit 10(o) (v)

 Approved by Board December 18, 2009



DIRECTORS' ANNUAL RETAINER PLAN

 1. This Plan shall govern the annual retainer and quarterly meeting fees payable for services as a member of the Board of Directors of Albany International Corp. ("the Company") during the period from the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Company in 2010 until it is amended or terminated by the Board of Directors; provided, that in no event shall any shares be paid under this plan after May 29, 2018. This Plan shall affect only the portion of the annual retainer or meeting fees to be paid in shares of Class A Common Stock ("Shares") of the Company.

 2. A portion of the amounts payable for service as a member of the Board of Directors each year shall be paid in Shares. Each director shall receive a portion of the annual retainer equal to $50,000 in Shares. The total number of shares to be paid to each director each year shall be determined by dividing $50,000 by the per share closing price of a share of such stock on the day of the Annual Meeting at which the election of directors for such year occurs ("the Valuation Price"), as such Valuation Price is shown on the composite index for such day in the Wall Street Journal, rounded down to the nearest whole number. Any director may elect to have any withholding tax obligation arising from the distribution of shares under this Plan to be satisfied by directing the Company to withhold shares with a value equal to such obligation from the shares that would otherwise be issuable. In addition, any director who has met or exceeded any share ownership guidelines or
requirements adopted by the Board of Directors and then in effect, may elect to receive all or any portion of the shares that would otherwise be distributed under this paragraph in cash. Any election pursuant to this paragraph shall be made no later than 10 business days prior to the date on which shares would otherwise be delivered.

 3. The shares of Class A Common Stock payable to a director under this Plan shall be delivered to the director as promptly as practicable after each Annual Meeting. Upon delivery to the director, such shares shall be fully paid, non-assessable and not subject to forfeiture.

 4. The portion of the annual retainer not paid in shares--that is, the aggregate dollar amount of the annual retainer for the year, as determined from time to time by the Board of Directors, less (i) the Valuation Price times (ii) the number of whole shares payable to a director for the year--as well as any cash meeting fees or other cash compensation, shall be paid to the directors in cash at such time or times during the year as the Board of Directors shall from time to time determine.

 5. This Plan may be terminated or amended by the Board of Directors at any time, subject to any applicable rules or regulations requiring approval by stockholders of the Company.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 71**  **54**

ANTHONY RAY HARRIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
COUNTY OF WAKE; UNKNOWN WORKER; SHERIFF OF WAKE COUNTY; MRS. SCOTT , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5: 11

- ct

- 03 044

- FL )

Submitted : November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Ray Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Ray Harris seeks to appeal a n unspecified
di strict court order entered in his action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 );
Fed. R. Civ . P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). Neither of t he order s entered on
the district court sheet is a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Harris’
motion for release and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Barry Lamperd, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Dated: May 31, 2006 |   |              |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------|
|                |   |              |
|                |   |              |
|                |   | /s/ Barry Lamperd |   |  
 

 

Barry Lamperd

 

 

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

 

Lamperd Less Lethal Inc.

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. and will be retained by Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

 

 

  |
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      UNDER SECTION 906 OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies in his capacity as
an officer of Imperial Capital Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) that this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
financial statements included in such report.




Date:
March 17,
2008                                                   /s/ George W.
Haligowski


George W.
Haligowski


Chairman
of the Board,


President
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:
March 17,
2008                                                   /s/ Timothy M.
Doyle


Timothy
M. Doyle


Executive
Managing Director and


Chief
Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**913 KA 09-02094**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
JOHNNY B. BIVINS, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SHIRLEY A. GORMAN, BROCKPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (HANNAH STITH LONG OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered June 18, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by defendant on July 23, 2014 and by the attorneys for the parties on August 1 and 5, 2014,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed upon stipulation.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NUMBERS 13-09-00402-CV

 13-09-00678-CV

 13-09-00679-CV

 13-10-00091-CV

 13-10-00092-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DEAN CORY ROBLIN, Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH SUSAN BRIGGS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Montgomery County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Dean Cory Roblin, in appellate cause numbers, 13-09-00402-CV, 13-

09-00678-CV, 13-09-00679-CV, 13-10-00091-CV, and 13-10-00092-CV, appealed a 
2

judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery, County. In all five

causes, Roblin filed an affidavit of indigence with this Court. However, on October 28, 

2010, in Roblin v. Briggs, No. 13-09-00475-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8655, at *12 

(Tex.–Corpus Christi Oct. 28, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.), this Court concluded that 

Roblin had not met his burden of showing that he was indigent; and therefore Roblin

was not entitled to a free record.

On May 16, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Roblin, in accordance with 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss his appeals unless 

the $175.00 filing fees were paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Roblin responded to the 

notice from the Clerk; however, he has not cured the defect by paying the $175.00 filing 

fee in each cause. See id 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and Roblin’s failure to pay 

the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeals should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b), 

(c). Accordingly, the appeals in cause numbers 13-09-00402-CV, 13-09-00678-CV, 13-

09-00679-CV, 13-10-00091-CV, and 13-10-00092-CV are dismissed for want of 

prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

9th day of June, 2011.